The original Triumph GT6 was of course a Spitfire with a fastback fixed roof and the larger 2 liter inline six from the Vitesse. It was of course faster, but that tended to exacerbate the limitations of the swing axle rear suspension that it inherited from its source, the Herald. The GT6+ featured a fully-jointed new rear suspension that solved that isse, and it got a bit of a tweak to the engine to make it a bit brisker.
So it earned that “+” sign.
m
My female cousin bought one of these after getting her Masters degree. She traded a very tired 55 Dodge for it. I was somewhat surprised when she offered to let me drive it for a few miles…my first experience in driving a sports car. Looking back I am amazed that 6 foot plus of me fit in such a small car, but I had a ball driving that car.
I would go on to buy a Spitfire and later a TR3.
I’ve always loved these, to me it’s a mini E-Type, I just wish I could have fit in one, I drove one on Falls Rd in Baltimore back in the ’80s and it was a blast but also a tight fit, even when I was in my 30s.
Always liked these, had a TR-6 in the nineties and had great fun on the country
roads in Baltimore and Harford counties back then.
A couple years later I did buy a ’68 E-Type fhc (fixed head coupe in Jag parlance, the pretty shorter one) and surprisingly it wasn’t all that much bigger, though I did fit. My MGB/GT felt larger and more airy inside somehow, and was at least as much fun to drive.
I read a period review of the E-type 2+2 not long ago. IIRC, the author thought any aesthetic and performance trade-offs for the 2+2 body-style were more than compensated for by the car finally being big enough for grown men to drive comfortably.
Does anyone know if the MGB GT was developed in parallel with the roadster, or was it developed from the roadster after production started? It certainly followed the roadster into production. It’s interesting that the MGB GT had more room than the E-type coupe, considering that the Jaguar was always meant to be available as a coupe. On the other hand, the MGB GT was designed with the goal of adding practicality and an occasional-use backseat to the MGB. In that sense, it has more in common with the E-type 2+2, although it was well-executed on the same wheelbase as the 2-seat convertible.
The MGB GT was a later development, and unlike the XKE coupe and GT6, it had a significantly taller windshield than the roadster resulting in more overall-height. It also didn’t have nearly as steep of a fastback, like the other two; its roof went further back, to make more interior room. It was much more practical than either the XKE coupe or the GT6.
The XKE 2+2 had a longer wheelbase as well as a totally different and significantly taller and longer roof structure.
Before I bought my ’68 E I test drove a low mile ’72 a 2+2 E owned by a classy middle-aged woman who lived in Ruxton Towers, a very fancy place on Charles St and Bellona at the Beltway just a few blocks from my parent’s place. It was silver with blue leather and drove amazingly smoothly and quietly… and fast! By the mid-’80s these were somewhat affordable, and I came close to buying but finally just couldn’t abide the “pregnant” body style and opted to pass on it. Not unhappy I did but today I wish I still had the ’68!
When I was in high school, maybe in 1971 or ‘72, an older kid got one of these. I assume it was a 6+ as I recall the styled steel wheels. It seemed pretty exotic for high school back then, though they weren’t uncommon on the streets. Even when I was a senior a few years later, only a handful of kids had their own cars; the fanciest was a heavily patina-ed Jaguar XK150 which really looked like a beater, unlike the GT6 which was near-new looking.
Such a great looking car. I would much prefer this Triumph over a MGB GT any day of the week. It has the best engine access for a production car I’ve ever seen.
Great engine access lifted straight from the Herald/Spitfire, The engine is from the Standard Vanguard saloon of 1961 tried and tested long term, they were a true Stanpart parts bin car with nice styling and even now parts cars from the rest of Triumphs range are still driving around, enough of them have been uprated to 2.5 spec now to convince people the factory built them.
Standard made a really good 6 cylinder engine and put it in everything even sleeving it down to 1600cc for the Herald to make the first Vitesse model.
The last paragraph of the road test. Datsun 240Z. “Hold my beer”
I had a 1967 GT6 that I bought in 77. For a ten year old car it was pretty used up. A previous owner installed a Spitfire differential with the wrong ratio, the trans tunnel at the front was mangled and wouldn’t seal resulting in water intrusion and rusted out driver’s floor. Trans also had issues. Fixed all but the trans. Had to sell it to get a truck. It remains one of my favorite cars and taught me a lot about driving (by scaring the hell out of me a couple times). Still like the styling of the MK1 the best.
I am on my 5th GT6, a 73 with a MK1 engine. I’ve had a few GT6+s, and all of the variants are relatively quick, very smooth, and a blast to drive. They aren’t horrible in the snow as long as your tires are good. I put about 800-1000 miles a month on my car year round. Great car for errands, drives up into the mountains, and even commuting.
I really like the GT6, have since high school (graduated in 1972). And I seem to be a fan of Michelotti’s styling work. In my past I’ve had a Mk III Spitfire and an MGC GT. I miss them and I miss having British cars!
My ideal garage would include another Mk III Spitfire, a GT6+ and an MGB GT. The MGC is too rare these days for my tastes, but they sure sound nice! Alas, for fun cars I’m currently ‘stuck with’ and Alfa Spider and a 2019 FIAT 500C. The FIAT is our retirement toy, as my wife and I wanted a more modern convertible to have fun with. Still, a GT6 would be very nice…
Probably about 1970 (that’s about when my parents subscribed to Consumer Reports and I didn’t know much about them) CR did a reivew of the GT6+. They didn’t like it much, but one thing that stuck out in my head about the review was they described the seating as being “suitable for orangutans” or something to that effect…they said the seat back didn’t line up with the seat cushion. As my Mother suffers from scoliosis which has been amplified with age, I shouldn’t say it but I thought maybe she’d be right at home with one of these?
Don’t know why the Spitfire would be different, but CR seemed to focus on some items that you might think to be minutia…I’ve owned 3 watercooled VWs, the first two didn’t have directional arrows for the turn signal activator light(s) on the dash, just a single blinking light when you activated the turn signal in either direction. I thought that was just fine; I didn’t need to be told by a light which direction I had chosen to put the lever in; I just needed to be “reminded” that they were on….if I somehow forgot which position I put the switch in I suppose I could just look at the lever and find out, but I didn’t see any real value in having 2 lights for turn signals, instead of one. CR seemed to think this a deficiency, my current VW (2000 Golf) which I kind of consider a “sell out” for this and other reasons that seem to be changes to make it more “mainstream” has the right and left turn lights on the dash. Yes, it probably cost some money to make the change, but I’d argue that they thought it worth avoiding such an influential negative opinion (kind of a form of “advertising tax”.
I do think comfortable seating is an important part of a car’s function…if the seat backs didn’t line up, maybe there was a defect of some type…don’t really think that would have been by design (but never having been in one I don’t know for sure). But it made me wonder about some of the other things CR dings cars for and how important (or relevant indeed) they would be to me.
Zwep,
“They didn’t like it much, but one thing that stuck out in my head about the review was they described the seating as being “suitable for orangutans” or something to that effect…”
Many years ago Car & Driver’s P. J. O’Rourke wrote about the interior of an Aston Martin, describing the rear seat legroom as suitable only for “Thalidomide babies”, and ended up being sacked by C & D for the remark.
Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15106448/what-id-do-differently-we-interview-um-ourselves-on-our-60th-anniversary-interview/